ORDER : 1. Petitioner aggrieved with the order dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure P-2) in his appeal against the order dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) rejecting his appeal has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quashed the impugned order dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure P-1) & 15.07.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 as the same is arbitrary and malafide. 10.3 Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner while his posting as District Education Officer, Gariyaband, teachers of Government Middle School, Rajkathi, Block-Fingeshwar on 17.10.2015 took 75 students on open tractor to Sonai Rupai temple. On the way tractor met with an accident due to which 05 students (2 boys 3 girls) died on spot, many of them suffered injuries. The Collector, District Gariyabandh, suspended the teachers as well as employees responsible for the accident vide order dated 17.10.2015. Petitioner failed to issue charge-sheet to the suspended employees within 45 days for which petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 21.08.2017 stating that non-issuance of charge-sheet to the responsible employees within 45 days of their suspension is negligent act and is violative to Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (henceforth “Conduct Rules, 1965”), proposing punishment of withholding one increment under Rule 10(iv) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth “CCA Rules, 1966”). Petitioner submitted reply and thereafter the order of punishment withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect was issued on 21.12.2018. Petitioner challenged the said order of punishment in a departmental appeal addressing to Hon’ble Governor vide dated 03.01.2019, the said appeal also came to be dismissed against which this writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect is issued without complying the provision of Rules 16 of the CCA Rules 1966. The authority has not applied its mind recording finding that the full fledged departmental enquiry is not required. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect is issued without complying the provision of Rules 16 of the CCA Rules 1966. The authority has not applied its mind recording finding that the full fledged departmental enquiry is not required. It is also contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the authority issuing the order of punishment and the authority deciding the appeal against the punishment is one and the same and therefore the order is not sustainable. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner on merit is also that the respondent-authority has passed the order of punishment without considering the Circular issued by General Administrative Department Chhattisgarh State dated 20.05.1992 mentionign therein that where any criminal case is pending against any Government employee the proviso to Rule 9(5)(a) of CCA Rules, 1966 will not apply. Whereas the allegation in the showcause notice against the petitioner is that due to his non-issuance of charge memo to the suspended employees within 45 days of their suspension, it got automatically revoked and thereby the petitioner acted negligently. She places reliance upon the decision in WPS No. 4980 of 2009 (Ajeet Singh Jat vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) to buttress her submission. 4. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that respondent-Department considering the conduct of petitioner to be in violation of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules 1965 issued show-cause notice. As in the notice itself the minor punishment is proposed considering the reply submitted by the respondents to be non-satisfactory, order Annexure P-1 dated 21.12.2018 was passed inflicting minor punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect. There is no irregularity or illegality in passing the order. Petitioner and his counsel are misinterpreting the Circular dated 20.05.1992; even if the criminal case is registered against any of the Government servant, charge-sheet is to be issued to the said employee. 5. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for petitioner with regard to issuing authority and the appellate authority to be one and the same is misconceived. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 7. 5. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for petitioner with regard to issuing authority and the appellate authority to be one and the same is misconceived. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 7. Petitioner along with writ petition has placed on record the order of suspension issued to responsible teachers/ employees of Government Middle School, Rajkathi, show-cause notice, reply to show-cause notice, order of punishment, appeal memo and the order in appeal. Respondents have not submitted any documents along with their reply. To appreciate the first ground raised by the counsel for petitioner that the order of punishment is illegal on the ground that relevant provision of CCA Rules 1966 has not been complied, I find it appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of Rules of CCA Rules 1966 applicable to the facts of the case which read as under: ? Rule 10(i) to (iv) of the CCA Rules 1966 provides for minor penalties which states as under: - “10. Penalties.—The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:— Minor penalties :— (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of order; (iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance;” ? Rule 11 talks of punishment of members of Class-IV service which states as under: 11. Punishment of members of class IV service. — Besides the penalties specified in rule 10, the penalty of fine not exceeding Rupees five, may also be imposed on a Government servant belonging to Class IV service by appointing authority or any other authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf for petty carelessness, unpunctuality, idleness or similar misconduct of a minor nature : Provided that the maximum fine imposed on any Government servant in any month should not exceed Rupees five : Provided further that the order of fine imposed in accordance with this rule shall not be subject to review under Rule 29. ? Rule 12 talks of disciplinary authority which states as under: 12. Disciplinary authorities.—(1) The Government may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 on any Government servant. ? Rule 12 talks of disciplinary authority which states as under: 12. Disciplinary authorities.—(1) The Government may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 on any Government servant. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 may be imposed on— (a) a member of State Civil Service by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor; (b) a person appointed to a State Civil post by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the Governor, or [xxx] by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule : — (a) no penalty specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be imposed by any authority subordinate to the appointing authority: [Provided that the High Court shall have the power to impose all the penalties except penalties as specified in clause (vi) (so far as it relates to reduction in rank i.e., post of service), and clauses (vii) to (ix) of Rule 10.] (b) where a Government servant who is a member of a service, is temporarily appointed to any other service or post, the authority competent to impose on such Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall not impose any such penalties unless it has consulted such authority, not being an authority subordinate to it, as would have been competent under sub-rule (2) to impose on the Government servant any of the said penalties had he not been appointed to such other service or post. Explanation. — Where a Government servant belonging to a service or holding to a service or holding a State civil post of any class, is promoted, whether on probation or temporarily to the service or civil post of the next higher class, he shall be deemed for the purposes of this rule to belong to the service of, or hold the State civil post of such higher class. ? Rule 13 talks of authority to institute proceedings which states as under:— 13. Authority to institute proceedings. ? Rule 13 talks of authority to institute proceedings which states as under:— 13. Authority to institute proceedings. —(1) The Governor or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may- (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant; (b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in Rule 10. (2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties. ? Rule 14 deals with the procedure of imposing penalties, Rule 14(1), 14(2) and 14(3) state as under:— 14. Procedure for imposing penalties. — (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 15 or in the manner provided by the Public Servants' (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act. (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to Inquire into the truth thereof. Explanation. - Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to subrule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority. Explanation. - Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to subrule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority. (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up- (i) the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge; (ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain :- (a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant; (b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. ? Rule 16 of the CCA Rules 1966 provides procedure for imposing minor penalties which states as under: “16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 and Rule 11 shall be made except after— (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub- rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (e) consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary. (1-a) xxx xxx xxx (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the commission, if any; (vi) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.” 8. As in the case at hand, the show cause notice was issued for imposing minor penalty, the authorities have passed an order imposing the minor penalty of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect. Sub-rule 1(b) of Rule 16 clearly provides for holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary. Meaning thereby, after receipt of reply to the show-cause notice, there is discretion with the disciplinary authority whether to hold an inquiry or not applying his mind. The discretion given to the authority is to be judicially applied and therefore when the authority has to apply its mind for exercising its discretion it is necessary that such application of mind should reflect in its order to be in writing even if the authority is not inclined to conduct full-fledged enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules 1966. In absence of such finding, the order imposing penalty would be invalid unless, of-course, it can show that the omission has not resulted to prejudice to the employee. Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Union of India and another vs. C.P. Singh [2004 (II) MPJR 252] relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Bharadwaj vs. Union of India [ 2001 (9) SCC 180 ] and Food Corporation of India vs. A. Prahalad Rao [ 2001(1) SCC 165 ] summarised the legal position for imposing minor penalty in paragraphs 16 and 17 as under: - “16. The position as can be gathered from the Rules and the aforesaid decisions can be summarised thus: (i) x x x x x (ii) x x x x x (iii) The normal rule, except where the employee admits guilt, is to hold a regular inquiry. But where the penalty proposed is a ‘minor penalty’, then the Rules give the Disciplinary Authority a discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry for reasons to be recorded by him, and hold only a summary enquiry. (iv) Though the Rules contemplate imposing a minor penalty without holding a regular enquiry, where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is not necessary, such decision not to hold an enquiry can be only for valid reasons, recorded in writing. Dispensation with a regular enquiry where minor penalty is proposed, should be in cases which do not in the very nature of things require an enquiry, for example, (a) cases of unauthorised absence where absence is admitted but some explanation is given for the absence; (b) noncompliance with or breach of lawful orders of official superiors where such breach is admitted but it is contended that it is not willful breach; (c) where the nature of charge is so simple that it can easily be inferred from undisputed or admitted documents; or (d) where it is not practicable to hold a regular enquiry. (v) But, even where the penalty proposed is categorised as minor penalty, if the penalty involves withholding increments of pay which is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension (or special contribution to provident fund payable to the employee), or withholding increments of pay for a period exceeding three year or withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, then it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to hold a regular inquiry. 17. It is also possible to read the decisions in Bharadwaj and FCI harmoniously, if Bharadwaj is read as stating a general principle, without reference to any specific rules, that it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to hold a regular enquiry, even for imposing a minor penalty, if the charge is factual and the charge is denied by the employee. It is also possible to read the decisions in Bharadwaj and FCI harmoniously, if Bharadwaj is read as stating a general principle, without reference to any specific rules, that it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to hold a regular enquiry, even for imposing a minor penalty, if the charge is factual and the charge is denied by the employee. On the other hand, the decision in FCI holding that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to dispense with a regular enquiry, even where the charge is factual and the employee denies the charge, is with reference to the specific provisions of a Rule vesting such discretion.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Sarat Chandra Goswami [ 2014 (13) SCC 211 ] relying upon its earlier decision in the case of A. Prahalada Rao (supra) observed thus: 7. It is submitted by Mr, Chatterjee that the High Court has erroneously understood the ratio and ruled that an opinion has to be formed in writing. It is his further submission that when the reasons are manifest from the preliminary inquiry and from the show cause it was erroneous on the part of the High Court to emphasise on the formation of opinion. 8. Per contra, Mr. Chaudhary heavily relied on the authority in A. Prabhakar Rao (supra) and urged that the discretion vested in the disciplinary authority under the Regulations casts an obligation on it to form an opinion and formation of such opinion has to be in writing. 9. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that he has taken note of the fact that there was no expression or formation of opinion. He has further recorded that the learned counsel for the Corporation had conceded that there was nothing to show that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director who had made the final order had recorded any opinion in writing before making the final order to the effect there was no need to hold a regular inquiry. He has further recorded that the learned counsel for the Corporation had conceded that there was nothing to show that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director who had made the final order had recorded any opinion in writing before making the final order to the effect there was no need to hold a regular inquiry. From the principle stated by this Court in A. Prahalada Rao’s case it is quite limpid that though in all cases where the employees disputes his liability, a full-fledged enquiry is not expected to be held as that would frustrate the purpose of interpreting the summary procedure for imposing minor penalties, yet the discretion conferred under the Regulation 1960 (1)(b), if exercised in a arbitrary manner, it is open to the employee to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. The Court had further opined that the Regulation 60(1)(b) mandates the disciplinary authority to form its opinion whether it is necessary to hold an inquiry in a particular case or not. 10. Once it is held that there has to be formation of opinion and such an opinion is assailable in a legal forum, we are of the view that the said opinion has to be founded on certain objective criteria. It must reflect some reason. It can neither be capricious or fanciful but demonstrative of application of mind. Therefore, it has to be in writing. It may be on the file and may not be required to be communicated to the employee but when it is subject to assail and, eventually, subject to judicial review, the competent authority of the Corporation is required to satisfy the Court that the opinion was formed on certain parameters indicating that there was no necessity to hold an enquiry. Thus, the High Court has correctly understood the principle stated in A. Prabhakar Rao (supra) and we do not find any fault with the same.” 10. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, Rule 16(1)(b) also confers discretion on the authorities of forming an opinion that such enquiry is necessary for imposing minor penalty. Regulation 60(1) (b) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, considered in the case of A. Prahalad Rao (supra) is para materia to Rule 16(1)(b) of CCA Rules 1966. Regulation 60(1) (b) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, considered in the case of A. Prahalad Rao (supra) is para materia to Rule 16(1)(b) of CCA Rules 1966. In the aforementioned decisions also Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once it is held that there has to be formation of opinion and such an opinion is assailable in a legal forum, that opinion has to be founded on certain objective criteria and must reflect some reason. It can neither be capricious or fanciful but demonstrative of application of mind. Therefore it has to be in writing. In the present case the show-cause notice was issued leveling certain allegations against the petitioner of misconduct for imposing proposed punishment under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules 1966 which was replied and denied. No material is placed before this Court by the respondents that before passing an order, the authority, by applying its mind came to the conclusion that there is no requirement of conducting enquiry applying his mind as provided under Rule 16(1)(b). Issuing order of punishment, not following the procedure prescribed in Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCA Rule, 1966, in the opinion of this Court suffers with illegality and therefore the order dated 21.12.2018 imposing punishment and the appellate order dated 15.07.2019, Annexure P-1 and P-2, respectively are not sustainable and accordingly they are set aside. 11. For the foregoing discussion, writ petition is allowed. Orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 dated 21.12.2018 & 15.07.2019 are quashed reserving liberty in favour of respondents to proceed further in accordance with law.